Kano Chronicle - CIFAS

Kano Chronicle 45
years.?? This tends to support the view that the original Chronicle was com- /
piled in .the mid-sixteenth century from various documents and oral sources /'
having special knowledge of the chiefdom's history. Thereafter, on my
reading in relation to other histories and king lists of Kano, the Chronicle
was periodically updated at irregular intervals of between fifty and a hWldred
or more years, sufficient to ensure comparable degrees of inaccuracy,
incompleteness and uu'reliability in the earlier reigns of each new section,
from Yaji's time onwards.
VI
Murray Last correctly identifies a number of anachronisms and hesitations in
the Chronicle '5 account of developments at Kano before 1450 A.D., attributing
these to 17th century writers. Some are rather superficial, for example
reference to guns (bindiga) in Dauda's reign (1421-1427 A.D.).? 8 Likewise,
, '~In the days of Yaji, it is said, Sa"rkin Debbi, Sarkin Daba and Sarkin Gano
brought horses to Kano, but this story is not worthy of credence.,,7 9 Nonetheless
its account of the siege and seizure of Santolo makes frequent re-
,ference to horses. Though clearly such titles as Madawaki and Dawaki
(i.e. commanders of calvary) in the reign of Warisi, Bagauda's son (1063­
1095 A.D.) .are anachronistic, so too are the titles of Galadima, Barawa,
Magayaki, Makama, Jarumai, Barde in that reign.80 Such titular anachronisms
provide no firm basis for the conclusion that horses were not known in
Kana. The Bayajidda legend tells of his coming to Daura on a horse and seeking
to water his horse before killing the dreaded snake. 8 1 In the passage just
cited, the chiefs of Debbi,· Dab and Gano, who according to the Chronicle
arrived in Kano COWltry nine 'years before Bagauda,82 are said to have
brought horses during Yaji's reign, perhaps from Borno. There are other
questionable attributions, such as Gijimasu's wall-building and slaughter of
a hundred cattle on the first day.8 3
'
Murray Last performs a valuable service in drawing attention to the many
anachronisms, uncertainties and errors in the Kano Chronicle, and especially
for the first 400 years of its record, which suggests that the document was
originally drafted in the 16th century. He also identifies various omissions or
failures in the record; but such omissions are not confined to the. earlier
centuries, they apply equally well to the last two hWldred years of Hausa
rule at Kana. Altogether his analysis of the historicity of the Chronicle for
the period of Hausa rule at Kano is a contribution of permanent value to
historical studies of this region, however, the lifIlitations of this critique,
which are sometimes expressed but more often assumed by its author,
should not be ignored. What Murray Last argues is that the current version
of the Chronicle, whether in Arabic, English or Ha~sa, basically dates from